Environmental groups back EPA plan for reduce nitrogen loads

PORTSMOUTH — Representatives of environmental groups weighed in on the protection of the Great Bay estuary and costs associated with upgrading local wastewater treatment plants.

JOSHUA CLARK

PORTSMOUTH — Representatives of environmental groups weighed in on the protection of the Great Bay estuary and costs associated with upgrading local wastewater treatment plants.

Tom Irwin, vice president and N.H. advocacy center director with the Conservation Law Foundation, and Joel Harrington, director of government relations with The Nature Conservancy, spoke with the Seacoast Media Group's editorial board Wednesday. The pair discussed several issues related to the estuary, including the federal government's mandate to reduce nitrogen discharged from wastewater treatment plants across the region.

Revised regulations of the N.H. Department of Environmental Sciences and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will force 21 New Hampshire and Maine communities around the estuary to upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities, including Portsmouth, Newington, Exeter, Newmarket and Newfields. Each upgrade will cost millions of dollars.

When the EPA will issue new standards for acceptable quantities of released nitrogen remains unknown, as does the cost of any work to meet more strict regulations. Portsmouth estimates the cost to upgrade its two plants from $63 million to more than $100 million. City ratepayers face an increase of two to three times their current rates based on those figures.

Irwin said the CLF's position is based on the federal Clean Water Act, which says the state and EPA must use the best available technology to control pollutants causing a body of water to be impaired; and cost may not be considered in the search for a solution.

Harrington said he believes the EPA will institute a phased approach to the upgrades, to mitigate immediate economic impact.

"I'm convinced that the EPA is going to come down with some order in the permits, but I don't think it's going to be a five-year requirement," he said. "I think it is going to be spread out because of the economic situation, and I think that pressure from our delegation is already under way."

Jamie Radice, communications director for U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., said the congresswoman is aware of the cost concerns.

"We are certainly going to work with the communities to be as helpful as we can be," said Radice. "There are federal resources that exist to help with these types of projects, like the Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Funds and the State and Tribal Assistance Grants. However, as is the case with so many things today, there is more need than there is money. The congresswoman is a staunch advocate in making investments in our communities as it creates jobs and it meets critical needs."

Harrington agreed, while he believes federal dollars should help defray the impact on local ratepayers, the availability of those funds is an issue. He referenced the State Revolving Loan Fund, to which the federal government supplies matching funds, that was unfunded in the last session of the N.H. Legislature.

"Towns like Portsmouth and Durham cannot go to that fund and get the money they need because the state does not have the match to give to the communities to do it," he said. "To me, this is the worst time to be under-funding the SRF program."

Irwin said cost should not override the need to upgrade the plants, but added he is willing to assist in working with the state's federal delegation.

"I've conveyed to the city (Portsmouth) more than once that we would be happy to work with them through the federal delegation to find federal dollars to help defray this cost," Irwin said. "I haven't got any response from that and I don't know if the city has been working independently to obtain federal dollars."

When asked if CLF would support delaying the upgrades until federal dollars are in place, Irwin said no; there is no clear indication of when federal money would become available.

"I'm not sure what arguing about cost right now does," he said. "We have to be proactive and have interim solutions right now in terms of land protection and restoration or bringing land use boards together and figuring out what can be done from here on out to limit this issue.

"The cost of inaction is we could be facing the situation they're facing in Chesapeake Bay, where for 15 or 20 years, multi-state (groups) and other efforts to save the bay have not been able to solve the problem, and it's had a huge economic impact."

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Advertise

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
seacoastonline.com ~ 111 New Hampshire Ave., Portsmouth, NH 03801 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service